Social status mediates the propagation of unfairness

Abstract

Fairness constitutes a cornerstone of social norms, emphasizing equal treatment and equitable distribution in interpersonal relationships. Unfair treatment often leads to direct responses and can spread to others through a phenomenon known as pay-it-forward (PIF) reciprocity. This study examined how unfairness spreads in interactions with new partners who have higher, equal, or lower status than the participants. In the present study, participants (N = 47, all Korean) were given either fair or unfair treatment in the first round of a dictator game. They then allocated monetary resources among partners positioned at various hierarchical levels in the second round. Our main goal was to determine if the severity of inequity inflicted on new partners was influenced by their hierarchical status. The results revealed an inclination among participants to act more generously towards partners of higher ranking despite prior instances of unfair treatment, whereas a tendency for harsher treatment was directed towards those with lower ranking. The interaction between the fairness in the first round (DG1) and the hierarchical status of the partner in the second round (DG2) was significant, indicating that the effect of previous fairness on decision-making differed depending on the ranking of the new partners. This study, therefore, validates the presence of unfairness PIF reciprocity within hierarchical contexts.

Keywords: dictator game; economic decision-making; fairness; hierarchy; pay-it-forward reciprocity; self-enhancement; sense of power.

Figure 1

Schematic diagram of metaverse-based experiment. (A) Metaverse online laboratory. (B) Commencement of the experiment.

Figure 2

Schematic diagram of hierarchy manipulation task. (A) The time estimation task. (B) The dot discrimination task. (C) Hierarchy assignment depending on the participant’s performance.

Figure 3

Modified sequential dictator game where each trial comprises two rounds. (A) In the first round, the participant (e.g., “me” on the right side) performed as a recipient, viewing the distribution result made by the dictator (e.g., “JYK” on the left side). (B) In the second round, the participant (e.g., “me” on the left side) performed as a dictator, deciding how much money to allocate to the partner (e.g., “DEK” on the right side) out of $10.

Figure 4

Behavioral results. (A) 2 (DG1 fairness: Fair or Unfair) × 3 (DG2 partner’s hierarchy: High vs. Equal vs. Low) rmANOVA on the normalized chosen amount and (B) on the average percentage of choosing unfair option.

Figure 5

Individual differences in personality traits predicting one’s sensitivity to the partner’s hierarchy. (A) People with higher sensitivity to the partner’s hierarchy showed higher personal sense of power (SoP) score and (B) higher self-enhancement (SEM) score. All results are based on two-tailed Pearson correlation analyses and the line shadow indicates the 95% confidence interval.

Figure 6

Individual differences in personality traits predicting the degree to which participants are sensitive to the unfairness of the allocation offered. Unfair option parameter indicates increased tendency of splitting fair option to the DG2 partner as the unfair option increases. Those with higher unfair option sensitivity were more likely to split more money to the partner when the amount of unfair option decreased. (A) Participants with high degree of such parameters were negatively correlated with empathy and (B) fear of negative evaluation (FNE). Both results are based on two-tailed Pearson correlation analyses and the shadowed line indicates the 95% confidence interval.